fair use?
Mills asked an interesting question in his comment on Nicole’s post:
Being a photographer, what would you feel about people using an image that you shot as a personal background?
The backgrounds on my computer and my phone are pieces I found on websites maintained by artists I like. This is the phone:
The squid is by R. Stevens, who creates the webcomic Diesel Sweeties. His site explicitly said it was okay to use this as a background or icon.
This critter is from one of Steven Burke’s several art sites — all of which state “all rights reserved.”. I enjoy the piece, I don’t publicly display it, I don’t profit from it, and when people occasionally ask me what it is I point them toward his work. He’s gained a tiny bit more traffic because of it, and perhaps one of those people will tell someone else who might commission a work for actual money.
So the questions for you folks are: Is my use of this piece a violation of copyright law? Am I morally wrong to use this piece as a background? (Take note: those are not necessarily the same question.)
Comments
I don't think it's wrong to use art for backgrounds or decoration. The point where it becomes wrong is when someone doesn't give credit where credit is due and tries to pass the artwork off as their own or tries to profit from it.
Posted by: Nicole | April 10, 2007 12:57 PM
Okay - I'll take a stab at this one. I think using that piece is a violation of copyright law. The artist states "all rights reserved" and the picture isn't part of a photo or video that you shot. Morally, I see nothing wrong with it. It is not being used to generate profit for yourself or anyone else; when someone asks about it, you give credit and the artist is acknowledged. Like you state, he may even earn a commission for money from someone you pointed his way!
Posted by: JuliaT | April 10, 2007 08:31 PM